Israel is not the Third Reich, not is it Stalin's USSR. Neither is a good nor a sensible, Jewish role model.

by H.H.A. Cooper (Omega Risk Group)

"… historical evidence has shown time and again that massive violence has usually prevailed over terrorism, because there is not an unlimited reservoir of people willing to replace those who are executed or imprisoned. There was no terrorism under fascism or communism. Even military dictatorships that were not completely totalitarian in character easily defeated terrorism." Walter Laqueur

This is not a lecture on morals. We are not using the word here to mean reprehensible or repugnant to the finer senses or not in accordance with certain accepted codes of ethical behavior. We are using the word wrong in the sense of mistaken, incorrect in thought and action. It has the kind of sense that we imply when we offer, in friendly fashion or otherwise, the critical observation, "That isn't going to work." Moreover, implicit in the term is the notion that what is being done or contemplated is counter-productive, it is damaging to the interests of those who are doing what is criticized as being wrong. It should be clear, then, that our own criticism here has nothing to do with any implied moral considerations such as those underpinning other meanings of the term wrong. We are not concerned with philosophical or ethical issues in this matter. We are interested only in the practicalities. We believe that Ariel Sharon is gravely mistaken in trying to follow what we might term The Laqueur Prescription. Insufficient attention has been paid to the word 'usually' in the first sentence. Laqueur is careful in his choice of words. Advisedly, he does not use the word 'invariably.' History, as appealed to by Laqueur in his example simply does not apply to Israel's current or future situation; it has no past to appeal to in the matter under review. We fault Sharon purely on military grounds. What he is seeking to do simply will not rid Israel of the scourge of terrorism. What it will do, in our opinion, is substantially affect, adversely, the security of the State and, in the long run, imperil the lives and fortunes of Jews everywhere. He will not achieve his objective by the chosen means, but he will do incalculable damage to Israel's (and Jewish, which are not always co-terminous) interests. This is why his strategy is wrong.Israel is not the Third Reich, not is it Stalin's USSR. Neither is a good nor a sensible, Jewish role model. Both those countries could assemble, for a time, a might the like of which no Israeli in his right mind could dream of matching. That might, and its application could be assailed only by a more powerful, international coalition assembled against it. Israel will not be allowed by the international community to commit the kind of genocide against the Palestinians that would be necessary to prevail over terrorism - and that is what it would now take. The "reservoir of hatred" is now so full that it cannot be drained by imprisonment or selective assassination. How long before the dam breaks, and Jews everywhere are imperiled by this mistaken strategy. Let us carry this craziness to its extreme. Are Jews, worldwide, ready to permit a holocaust of the Palestinians? For that, make no mistake, is what it would take to implement the Sharon strategy. He is mistaken in his belief that he can cow that people and bring them to heel under the Israeli jackboot. He will not achieve even a temporary respite by these means. He will succeed in building an implacable wall of hatred between his people and those on whom he must ultimately depend for his nation's safety. Those only are safe whom no-one wishes to harm. How many more Jews must sit shiva before this mistaken strategy is reversed?

There are aspects to what is happening that would be truly laughable were they not tragic. Taking Arafat hostage shows how little Sharon really knows about terrorism or the lessons of history. Rational hostage-takers i.e., the ones who aren't criminally crazy, pitch their demands realistically. They may demand more than they hope to settle for, as a negotiating ploy, but only the truly crazy - or those who have no intention whatsoever of negotiating - demand what they know they cannot get. The kidnappers of poor Daniel Pearl probably fall into this latter category. We voice no opinion on Sharon's sanity; it is his judgment we call in question. If he was truly interested in striking a deal advantageous to his people, he must have known that the party to whom he addressed his demands could neither in good faith agree to them nor deliver on the deal even if he were persuaded to enter into some accommodation. And history? Sharon is, mistakenly, seeking to judge a totally different people, their culture and their beliefs by reference to the history of his own. Ari, Yasir Arafat is no David Ben Gurion. He can no more bring Islamic Jihad to heel or convert Hamas into some kind of latter-day Herut than he could turn water into wine. Even if he wanted to do so. Which he probably doesn't.

Ari, face it. Israel has no viable existence without a just and durable peace with its neighbors; one which the world can accept on those terms. Your strategy can never attain this; the more chips you throw on the table, the more the other side is going to raise you. How long before Uncle Sam decides He is no longer going to be able to fund this meschugaz? Your strategy is simply not a good gamble. Maybe you should heed the wisdom of Uncle Meyer Lansky: don't bet the farm unless you own the casino. Israel does not own the casino and posturing to the contrary is just childish. Ari, you are coming to the end of your own Long March. It is time to think of your legacy. Many people around the world, not only in Israel, believed you were uniquely qualified to pull off a Nixon, to reach out to Israel's adversaries and usher in an era of peace where others before you had failed. As a soldier, as a Jew, as a patriot you have a duty not to fail them. Israel does not need another Bar Kochba. We believe your strategy is wrong. You cannot win peace by genocide, for we are convinced that is what it would take following the Laqueur Prescription. A good general does not reinforce failure. A great general has the courage to change his strategy. We believe you still have that option. Please take it while there is time.